Thiel 1.6 vs. 2.4 vs. 3.6 using NAD c372


I am considering a combination of Thiel speakers and a NAD c372 integrated amp. My questions are:

1. In a fairly small room (16' x 13') with the speakers unfortunately along the longer wall, what are the thoughts about the Thiel 1.6, 2.4 and 3.6 speakers?

2. Why are used 3.6 speakers now offered in a similar price range as the used 1.6 models?

3. How do you think the Thiels will match up with the NAD c 372 integrated amp? Which of the three speaker models might match up the best, if any?

Thanks
shimdog
Check the ohm rating factor across the spectrum for all the Thiels, some of which which can be pretty demanding on a small amp's current capabilities. Your NAD might not be able to deliver a powerful signal clean enough to prevent frying itself, the drivers or your ears.

Thiels are notoriously accurate and unforgiving of sources and electronics -- tend to show up any harshness along the chain, and can be fatiguing. If you're in love with accuracy but want to soften the high end a bit, and have the money, look into the heftier c-j tube stuff.

If the NAD must stay, look into something easier to drive, whose resistance doesn't drop much below 4 ohms.

Putting speakers along the long wall is not so bad, depending on boundary reflections (I must do this, too). Just keep them well out in the room if possible.

I use Thiel CS 3.6 driven by Forte 4A which, though rated at 50 amps, is Class A and apparently provides enough current to tame these beasts even for Mahler -- though I hasten to add my room is only 22 x 14 x 9 and I don't play the system terribly loud.

Cannot comment on price differential, except to speculate on relative popularity.
Overall NAD and Thiel 2.4s are a great bang for the buck system in that room, and might even embarass some of the more pompous audio jewelry systems out there.

Regarding the 3.6s, I am running the CS 3.6s in a small room, but I would advise against powering them with anything less than 200 wpc. During loud (95db) passages my CJ MF-2500 sounds strained, and I am actually thinking about upping the power once my summer bonus arrives. You may get by at power volumes, but my best guess is you'll still hear the NAD's proverbial "cockpit shaking". The 2.4's would be an easier load and have much of the same characteristics as the 3.6s, minus the deep bass.

Good luck on your audio journey,
I am running Thiel 3.6s on the short wall of a 13' by 21' room, and I am driving them with a pair of Rowland 201 monoblocks. I listen to classical music exclusively, and so far I'm very pleased. The 201s are 250W into 8 ohms and 500W into 4 ohms; I would be hesitant to drive the 3.6s with less power than this. I was using an Aragon 8008BB (200W/400W) before the Rowlands, and although it was able to drive the Thiels, the Rowlands sound more refined, especially on peaks.

Good luck!
This is probably of limited usefulness, but I helped my parents pick out a new stereo system, and after much searching and listening, we settled on a c372 and a used pair of theil .5's. They're not very efficient (87dB) and they dip to 3 ohms, but the combination is surprisingly nice--very crisp and clear and airy--and will play surprising loud w/o strain. I think you'd really like the 2.4, and the nad should sound great with them. Obviously, better amplification would result in better sound, but that doesn't mean the the nad would sound crappy.
hi,

I just auditioned a pair of Thiel 2.4s. They are amazing ! Just great sound pours out of them. Wide soundstage, tight deep palpable bass and precise articulate mids and highs. Female vocals to die for.

Now I'm saving my bucks. I'm planning to use a ss amp 230 watts into 8 ohms and 380 into 4 ohms.

good luck in your choice

Larry